4 ms·

It's just that "isomorphism" has a very well-defined meaning, and this is essentially cargo-culting mathematical-sounding language to refer to something that ha

It's just that "isomorphism" has a very well-defined meaning, and this is essentially cargo-culting mathematical-sounding language to refer to something that has nothing to do with isomorphism at all (at least, not in the sense that the word is usually meant). You can do all the reverse etymology you want, but in the end, we all know this is just a word that JavaScript kids are using because it makes them feel cool. This sort of reminds me of when that weird kid nobody likes tries on a new nickname (like "The Chief" or "Serpent" or "T") and I have to kindly say, “Hey bingo/bud, I'm really sorry, that nickname is just not happening".

abathologist 12y ago
In light of my previous reply, I wonder why you think appropriation of terms is okay going one way but not the other. It really seems a bit like bullying. Why can't the weird kid call itself whatever the weird kid chooses? It seems like the job of a bully to say "no way twerp, you can't use 'The Chief', that's only for cool kids to use". I don't know why you'd willingly take on that role.
- steego 12y ago
  No one is stopping the weird kid from reappropriating words and nobody is being bullied. People are simply objecting to a use of the word. This is no different than people objecting to using the word literally to emphasize a figurative expression. To your other point, I'm not against reappropriating words in different contexts to describe ideas metaphorically. In this particular case, isomorphic is already defined in a programming/math context. You're not so much reappropriating a definition to a new contract as you're making an existing word sound more ambiguous in the same context by diluting it. I think the reason people are so passionate about not diluting this term is because they want people to understand and really appreciate the value of isomorphisms. They're not being bullies to make themselves feel superior, they're trying to protect an idea from being misrepresented.

abathologist 12y ago

In light of my previous reply, I wonder why you think appropriation of terms is okay going one way but not the other. It really seems a bit like bullying. Why can't the weird kid call itself whatever the weird kid chooses? It seems like the job of a bully to say "no way twerp, you can't use 'The Chief', that's only for cool kids to use". I don't know why you'd willingly take on that role.

steego 12y ago
No one is stopping the weird kid from reappropriating words and nobody is being bullied. People are simply objecting to a use of the word. This is no different than people objecting to using the word literally to emphasize a figurative expression. To your other point, I'm not against reappropriating words in different contexts to describe ideas metaphorically. In this particular case, isomorphic is already defined in a programming/math context. You're not so much reappropriating a definition to a new contract as you're making an existing word sound more ambiguous in the same context by diluting it. I think the reason people are so passionate about not diluting this term is because they want people to understand and really appreciate the value of isomorphisms. They're not being bullies to make themselves feel superior, they're trying to protect an idea from being misrepresented.